introducing the turfco triwave 40 overseeder from g.c....

1-877-856-7333 • 905-856-7333 • www.qualityseeds.ca

Quality Turf SeedSpecialists

Quality Seeds for Sod Growers, Golf Courses, Sports Facilities, Municipalities & Landscape Contractors

Peter Coon • Cell: 705-715-3760John Konecny • Cell: 905-376-7044

DISTRICT SALES MANAGERS

Cathy Wall • Cell: 416-802-4391

PRODUCT MANAGER

Exclusive Distributors for hydraulic mulches featuringFlexterra FGM • Jet Spray • FlocLoc Tackifi erFuterra F4 Netless Erosion Control Blanket

Turf Specialist in Cultural Practices, Custom Grows, and Sod Removal & Installation

Drill & Fill • Root Pruning • Aerification • Overseeding • Deeptine • Verticutting

To contact our specialist Alexander Dickie directly,

call 905.505.5014.

877-727-2100 www.zandersod.comFor more information, contact us at

www.sportsturfassociation.com 11

Introducing the Turfco Triwave 40 Overseeder from G.C. Duke

With the Turfco Triwave 40 Overseeder, you can go green now—you don’t have to wait for the grass to come back next season. Just hook it up to your favourite turf vehicle and quickly seed all your trouble spots in one trip – no tractor or PTOs needed. Quickly adjust seed rates and depths to match the conditions you need with no tools required. The Triwave 40’s dual 18-inch floating heads follow the contour of the ground while the patented seed delivery system works with the WaveBlade technology to optimize seed-to-soil contact with minimal turf disruption. The close, 1½ inch spacing increases germination with fewer passes. For more information, visit www.gcduke.com or contact Paul Turner, Municipal Sales Manager, G.C. Duke Equipment Ltd. Mobile 416-566-0211 or email [email protected]

Turfgrass Seed Sources in OntarioAdvertising Supplement to the Sports Turf Manager, Spring 2013

The Sports Turf Association strongly recommends to athletic field managers that they use only improved cultivars that have been tested and found superior under local conditions.

SPECIESSUPPLIER

Graham Turf Seeds Ltd. Lawn Life Master's Turf Supply Ltd. Ontario Seed CompanyKentucky bluegrass Award

BaronBluechipCorsairEverestFull MoonImpactJumpstart

NuDestinyNuGladeRugby IIRushSkyeSR 2100SR 2284Sudden Impact

MallardMonte CarloOasisRidgelineWildhorse

AwardBarristerBedazzledBonaireBrooklawnDiva

EverestJumpstartMidnight ShamrockWildhorse

AwardBeyondBlue Chip PlusFreedom IIILiberatorMidnight StarNuBlue IINuDestinyNuGladePerfection

Texas/Kentucky bluegrass hybrid

Bandera

Poa compressa Reubens Canada Blue Canada BlueReubens

Poa supina Supra Nova

Poa trivialis Maximum Sabre III Bartalon Havana

Fine fescue: Blue SR 3200

Fine fescue: Chewings J-5Jamestown IVKing James

SR 5100SR 5130

7 SeasSurvivor

AmbassadorBridgeport IICulumbra II

J-5Jamestown II

Fine fescue: Creeping Red AudobonBorealCrossbow

SR 5210SR 5250Trapeze

LustrousPenn ASC 295Razor

AberdeenBoreal

MiserSeabreeze

ArubaAudubon

Fine Fescue: Hard Bighorn GTEcostarSoil Guard

SR 3100SR 3150

Predator OxfordReliant IV

Reliant VSoil Guard

Ecostar

Fine Fescue: Sheeps Marco Polo Quatro Marco Polo Marco Polo

Tall fescue Grande IIDarlington

Talladega RK4 Bighorn GTCoronado GoldFury

LexingtonTitan

Arid IIIInferno

Tall fescue: Spreading/Rhizomatous

Speedway Marauder Falcon IV Titan Ultra

Perennial ryegrass AccentArcticCaddyshackCalypso IIIChampionExtreme

HarrierSR 4220SR 4420SR 4500SR 4600Top Gun

Applaud IIIG2IntegraShining Star

AffirmedCharismatic IIDominatorDoubletimeIQ

Manhattan 5PassportPlateauTrifectaWind Dance 2

EvolutionRevengeTop Gun II

Perennial ryegrass: Creeping/Regenerating

CSI InsightSienna

Baralpha CSI

Weeping alkali Fults Salty Fults Fults

Contact Information Graham Turf Seeds Ltd.1702 Elm Tree Road, RR 1Lindsay, ON K9V 4R1P:795.878.8822F:705.878.1978 [email protected]

Lawn Life935023 Airport RoadMono, ON L9W [email protected]

Master's Turf Supply Ltd.P.O. Box 62980 William Street WestHarriston, ON N0G 1Z0P: 519.510.8873F: [email protected]

Ontario Seed Company77 Wellington Street SouthKitchener, ON N2G 2E6P:519.886.0557F:[email protected]

12 Spring 2013 Sports Turf Manager

The Sports Turf Association strongly recommends to athletic field managers that they use only improved cultivars that have been tested and found superior under local conditions.

SPECIESSUPPLIER

Pickseed Canada Inc. Plant Products Co. Ltd. Quality Seeds Speare SeedsKentucky bluegrass America

AppalachianArmadaBlue VelvetCrestExplorer

GraniteLangaraMercuryQuantum LeapTouchdownTouche

America Appalachian Armada Bandera Blue Velvet Bordeaux Cabernet Champagne Crest Granite

Langara Mercury Merit Moonshadow Quantum Leap Shiraz SR 2100Touchdown Zinfandel

AbbeyAleneAvalancheAviatorBardukeBarimpalaBarinqueBaririsBaron Baroness

BarristerBlackJackBlue AngelBlue NoteBlue SapphireCadetCorsairCourtyardEvergladeGaelic

HamptonHGTMidnightMidnight IIPrinceton 105ProsperityRavenRubicon Rugby II

AwardBarristerBedazzledBonaireBrooklawnDiva

EverestJumpstartMidnight ShamrockWildhorse

Texas/Kentucky bluegrass hybrid

Bandera Spitfire Farenheit 90 SPF 30 Bandera

Poa compressa Reubens Canada Blue

Poa supina Supernova Supranova

Poa trivialis ColtDarkhorse

Racehorse Darkhorse LaserSabre IV

Sun-Up Bartalon

Fine fescue: Blue Azay Blue Heron Little Big Horn MX 86

Fine fescue: Chewings

SilhouetteVictory IIWindward

SilhouetteVictory IIWindward

FairmontJamestown IV

Longfellow II AmbassadorBridgeport IICulumbra II

Fine fescue: Creeping Red

BorealGarnetJasper II

Mystic Sea Link

BorealCrossbowGarnet

Jasper IIMysticPathfinder

BorealCrossbowKent

LiFineNavigator IITrapeze

AberdeenBoreal

MiserSeabreeze

Fine Fescue: Hard Bornito Spartan II BornitoOxfordSpartan II

Aurora IIChariotFirefly

HeronRhinoRidu

OxfordReliant IVSoil Guard

Fine Fescue: Sheeps Azay Azay Little Big Horn Quatro Marco Polo

Tall fescue CayenneCrossfire 3

Mustang 4 MonetMustang 3Team Jr.

DarlingtonLexingtonSitka

Tahoe IITalladega

Bighorn GTCoronado GoldFuryLexington

Tall fescue: Spreading/Rhizomatous

Blade Runner II Team Blend RTF Rhizomatous

Falcon IV Titan Ultra

Perennial ryegrass Arctic GreenCutter IIDasher 3Edge IIExpress IIIFiesta 3

KarmaMightyNightskyQuebecTransist 2600TXR Annual

CutterDasher IIIEdge IIExacta II

Fiesta IVQuebecSecretariat II

Amazing GSApple GLEcologicalHome RunPalace

PillarPremiumPresidioPrimaryProminent

AffirmedCharismatic IIDominatorDoubletimeIQ

Manhattan 5PassportPlateauWind Dance 2

Perennial ryegrass: Creeping/Regenerating

Blazer 4 Fiesta 4 RPR Regenerating

Baralpha

Weeping alkali Fults Salty Fults II Fults

Contact Information Pickseed Canada Inc.P.O. Box 3041 Greenfield RoadLindsay, ON K9V 4S3P:705.878.9240F:[email protected]

Plant Products Co. Ltd.314 Orenda RoadBrampton, ON L6T 1G1P:905.793.7000F:905.793.9632www.PlantProd.com

Quality Seeds8400 Huntington Road Vaughan, ON L4L 1A5P:[email protected]

Speare SeedsP.O. Box 17199 John StreetHarriston, ON N0G 1Z0P:519.338.3840F:[email protected]

Turfgrass Seed Sources in Ontario


TURF SEEDING RATES The following are seeding rates per 100 m2 for specific species of grass seeds: creeping bentgrass, 0.5-1.0 kg; Kentucky bluegrass,1.0-2.0 kg; perennial ryegrass, 2.0-4.0 kg; fine fescue, 1.0-3.0 kg; tall fescue, 2.0-3.0 kg; and velvet bentgrass 0.5-0.8 kg.

Source: Turfgrass Management Recommendations, Publication 384, OMAFRA


Background I think it is safe to say that with the passing of the Cosmetic Pesticides Ban it has been more challenging to manage turf. Many of the pests that either attack or infest turf are more difficult to control using a one product – one pest approach. We must really integrate all of our tools, including cultural practices, turf species selection and bio-pesticides for success. In addition, the last few growing seasons have been very dry, increasing pressure on water supplies and necessitating watering bans in many municipalities. Ideally we are looking for pest tolerant grass species that are also drought tolerant. With that in mind we started to investigate the potential use of novel grass species that may not only be drought tolerant, but are also able to resist weed invasion and are less susceptible to insect feeding. Cue the arrival of rhizomatous tall fescue (RTF) and regenerative perennial ryegrass (RPR) into the market place. Rhizomatous tall fescue is purported to grow better in summer and late fall than tall fescues that are currently on the market. They have endophytes that are different from other tall fescues currently on the

market. They require less water because of their deep roots and have rhizomes which should give them the ability to fill in on their own if the turf stand thins due to wear, pest damage or any other stress for that matter. There is an excellent article that explains the origins of rhizomatous tall fescue and how it differs from the Continental tall fescue morphotype (a morphotype is the same species but it differs significantly morphologically, gene t ica l ly, phys io log ica l ly and geographically) than the tall fescue that the majority of the turf varieties on the market originate. The article can be found in Sports Turf Manager, Summer 2012, Vol. 25. No. 2. In this article there are data documenting the rhizomatous habit of this morphotype as well as some information on the performance of RTF under intense traffic. RTF plus Kentucky bluegrass and Kentucky bluegrass sod performed the best in the traffic performance trials and based on this RTF/Kentucky bluegrass sod is now being produced and marketed for sports fields in Ontario. What does regenerative perennial ryegrass have to offer that is novel? RPR is a subspecies of perennial ryegrass

that produces stolons. It is also referred to as stoloniferous perennial ryegrass. Until now, the cultivars of perennial ryegrass that have been marketed in Ontario have been bunch type. In addition to having stolons, RPR was selected under intense traffic stress for its ability to survive traffic and recover. RPR also contains endophytes, which is not novel for perennial ryegrass cultivars. There is some research information on these two novel types of grasses, but apart from some sod production of these, there is not a lot of information on them and how they perform in Ontario, especially when established from seed. My colleague and I were interested in seeing for ourselves how these species performed. Because tall fescue is supposed to be drought tolerant, we thought it would be interesting to look at RTF, RPR and a standard home lawn mix (HLM) (50% Kentucky bluegrass, 20% perennial ryegrass and 30% fine fescue) under two irrigation regimes (irrigated vs. non-irrigated). Experiment A plot area was worked and prepared for seeding at the Guelph Turfgrass

Rhizomatous Tall Fescue and

Regenerative Perennial Ryegrass

Performance in Ontario: Year 1

Pam Charbonneau, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food and Ministry of Rural Affairs, Turfgrass Specialist

Dr. Michael Brownbridge, Vineland Research and Innovation Centre

OTS HIGHLIGHTPresented February, 2013

Guelph, Ontario.

Institute. The experimental plots were arranged in a two by three factorial design (two irrigation regimes and three species/mixture) with four replications of each treatment. Plots measured 2 m x 2 m (4 m2) and were seeded on September 21, 2011 using a hand held shaker. Treatments and seeding rates are as indicated in Table 1.

All plots were mowed on a weekly basis (beginning in May 2012) at a height of 5 cm and were fertilized May 25, August 10 and September 14, 2012 with a 25-5-10 fertilizer applied at a rate of 0.5 kg of N/100 m2.

Irrigation Irrigated plots were individually watered to supply 25 mm of water in a one week period during June, July and the first two weeks of August using a hose-end sprinkler. A flow meter was used to ensure that a precise volume of water was delivered to each plot (Fig. 1). If rainfall was equal to 25 mm of water, no irrigation was applied. If rainfall was between 0 and 25 mm of water, irrigation was applied to bring the total water applied up to 25 mm for that one week period. Non-irrigated plots received rainfall only. Figures 2, 3 and 4 show the amount of rainfall and irrigation applied per week to the irrigated plots in June, July and the first half of August. The blue bars represent the amount of rainfall that the non-irrigated plots received per month. On July 18, 2012, all irrigated and non-irrigated plots received 25 mm of irrigation. This was done because there was a fear that all of the non-irrigated plots would die due to lack of water.

Establishment, species composition and weed invasion Percent cover of each grass species [tall fescue (TF), perennial ryegrass (PR), Kentucky bluegrass (KB) and fine fescue (FF), broadleaf weeds (BLW) and bare areas (bare)] was recorded on five dates (June 8, August 4, August 23 and October 18, 2012). The broadleaf weeds


Treatment Number

Turf species/mixture

Irrigation regime Seeding rate

1 Rhizomatous tall fescue (RTF)

Irrigated 2.5 kg/100 m2

2 Rhizomatous tall fescue (RTF)

Non-irrigated 2.5 kg/100 m2

3 Regenerative perennial ryegrass (RPR)


4 Regenerative perennial ryegrass (RPR)


5 Home lawn mix1 (HLM)


6 Home lawn mix (HLM)


Table 1.Treatments and seeding rates

Figure 1. Application method for irrigating individual plots with a flow meter and hose end sprinkler.

Figure 2. Millimeters of rain and irrigation for June, 2012.

Figure 3. Millimeters of rain and irrigation for July, 2012.

Figure 4. Millimeters of rain and irrigation for August, 2012.


found in these plots during the 2012 season were mainly annuals (i.e. black medick, whitlow grass, thyme-leaved sandwort, speedwell, purslane, chickweed, shepherd’s purse, henbit, goldenrod and pineapple weed). Dandelions were also found in the plots but were one of the few perennial broadleaf weeds. Four randomized point quadrats measuring 60 cm x 60 cm with 25 points in each quadrat (points 10 cm apart) (Fig. 5) for a total of 100 points in each plot were used to determine percent species cover of each of the turfgrass species, broadleaf weeds and bare at each assessment date (Figures 6 and 9). A new category (dead/brown) was added on the August 4 and 23 assessment dates (Figures 7 and 8). All data were analysed using appropriate statistical methods.

Figure 6 shows the species composition in the plots prior to the irrigation treatments and reflects how quickly each of the species established and how well they crowded out broadleaf weeds. Our main interest was the percent broadleaf weed cover and the percent bare. At this stage of the experiment, RPR and HLM provided good cover with very little bare area and were not significantly different from each other (11.75 and 13.625% bare respectively), while RTF had significantly more bare area (18.5%). Also, the three species treatments differed significantly from each other for broadleaf weed invasion with RTF having the most total BLW (47.75%), HLM having moderate weed invasion (31.25%) and the RPR having the least (23%). Not surprising, these results show that RTF is slower to emerge

and fill in than the RPR and HLM and that resulted in more BLW and more bare area with this slow to establish species. The RPR is very rapid to emerge and fill in and the perennial ryegrass in the HLM also provided quick establishment that helped to out-compete weeds and fill in the bare areas. Figure 7 shows the status of the treatment plots after six weeks of irrigation or non-irrigation. The main differences were in the percent bare, dead/brown and total BLW. At this point in the season only the non-irrigated RTF had significantly more percent bare area than all of the other treatments (18.5%). The non-irrigated HLM and RPR had similar percentage of dead/brown (69.5 and 69% respectively) and they had more dead/brown percent area than the non-irrigated RTF (44%). Perhaps surprising was the percent BLW. The irrigated RTF had significantly more BLW (64.25%) than any of the other treatments. The irrigated HLM, irrigated RPR and the non-irrigated RTF did not differ significantly from each other for BLW (31.25, 31 and 30.25% respectively). The non-irrigated HLM and RPR had very few BLW. At this date, when irrigation was added to plots that had lots of bare area, the result was an invasion of annual broadleaf weeds. On the non-irrigated plots, there were fewer weeds because there was not enough soil moisture for weed seed germination. In addition, the non-irrigated RTF had fewer dead/brown plants showing that it is superior at maintaining live non-dormant plants during prolonged periods without water. The data represented in Figure 8 gives an indication of the ability of the non-irrigated turf species/mixture treatments to recover from drought and for the irrigated turf species/mixture treatment to recover from broadleaf weed invasion. The percent dead/brown decreased from August 4 – August 23, 2012 for all of the non-irrigated plots. The non-irrigated RPR had significantly more dead/brown plants (14.75%) than the irrigated RTF, non-irrigated RTF and the irrigated RPR (4.5, 4.25 and 2.75% respectively). Overall there was very good recovery of the dead/brown turf in most of the non-irrigated treatments, with the non-irrigated RPR lagging behind slightly. Regarding the total BLW cover, the non-irrigated RTF and HLM had significantly more broadleaf weeds than any of the other treatments (74.25 and 69.5% respectively). The non-irrigated RPR and the irrigated RTF had the same amount of broadleaf weed cover (49.75 and 41% respectively) and the treatments with the

Figure 5. Point quadrat used to estimate percent species cover in plots.

Figure 6. Percent species composition June 8, 2012. Figure 7. Percent species composition Aug. 4, 2012.

fewest broadleaf weeds were the irrigated HLM and RPR (26 and 24.25% respectively). With the onset of timely rains during August, 2012 the bare areas in the non-irrigated plots were quickly populated by weeds as indicated by the total BLW cover in the non-irrigated RTR, HLM and RPR. Because the irrigated RTF also had a high percentage of bare areas, it also was invaded by broadleaf weeds when the late summer rains came. The data in Figure 9 represents the percent species composition of the treated plots at the end of the first treatment year. Non-irrigated RTF had the most total BLW of all of the treatments (46.25%). The percent bare areas in the non-irrigated treatments

increased from the August 23, 2012 to October 18, 2012 because many of the broadleaf weeds were annual weeds that died off after the fi rst frost leaving bare areas. These bare areas could also be a result of some of the plants categorized as dead/brown actually being dead. Another interesting observation at the end of the season was the species composition of the irrigated and non-irrigated HLM. The non-irrigated HLM had almost no Kentucky bluegrass plants in it (<1%) where the irrigated HLM had 11.5%, in spite of it comprising 50% of the seed mixture at seeding. There was signifi cantly more FF in the irrigated HLM, which is not surprising because of FF’s reputation for being drought tolerant.

32-2-10 Nutryon Season Long fertilizerNow turf professionals have an easy, convenient way to save time and money when they fertilize.

Designed to reduce the number of fertilizer applications and ideal for industrial, commercial or municipal turf; Nutryon Season Long provides up to six months of steady feeding from 90% slow release nitrogen. Four longevities of polymer-coated nitrogen in speci�c proportion ensure a constant supply of nitrogen to the turf while minimizing nitrogen losses to the environment.

1.800.265.8865 | www.nutrite.com

Figure 8. Percent species composition Aug. 23, 2012. Figure 9. Percent species composition Oct. 18, 2012.



SerendipityWhile walking past these plots in late October, a very interesting

phenomenon was observed. One plot in each block of the experiment had been disturbed by an animal digging for grubs. When the plot map was consulted, it turned out that the plots that were dug up were all the irrigated HLM. There was clearly something different about these plots. The questions were:1. Were there more grubs in the irrigated HLM than the other plots?2. Was there the same number of grubs in all of the plots, but did the animal prefer digging in the irrigated HLM plots?

To answer this question, six cup changer plugs of turf per plot were examined for the presence of grubs in all plots.

The data presented in Figure 10 shows the irrigated HLM and RTF had the same number of grubs per 0.1 m2, whereas the irrigated RPR plots contained approximately half the number of grubs per unit area. All of the non-irrigated plots regardless of the species/mixture had significantly fewer grubs per given area. What was interesting was the fact that even though the irrigated HLM and RTF had the same number of grubs, the animal digging for the grubs was only digging in the irrigated HLM. Figure 11 shows the irrigated HLM and non-irrigated HLM showing the animal digging in the irrigated HLM only. What we don’t know is:1. Did the grub eggs survive better in the irrigated HLM and RTF or did the female European chafer adults prefer laying their eggs in those plots?

2. Why is the animal digging the irrigated HLM and not the RTF plots which both contain grubs? With the help of Dr. Michael Brownbridge, VRIC, we hope that we can answer these questions next year.

Figure 11. Plot on the left shows the non-irrigated HLM and the plot on the right shows the irrigated HLM with animal digging.

Going forward We now have RTF and RPR plots that have significant bare areas in which we can evaluate their ability to spread. In addition, we will also have data in the spring of 2013 to evaluate their ability to overwinter in Ontario (for one winter). We have established similar plots for 2013 with more cultivars of these spreading species to continue our evaluation of their performance in Ontario. Here is hoping for another extremely dry season so that we can evaluate another year of their performance in drought conditions, evaluate their ability to spread and resist insect and weed invasion. •

Figure 10. Number of grubs per 0.1/m2

Acknowledgements:Taro Saito, VRICPaul Coté, VRICKaren Montgomery-Wilson, OMAFRA

Dr. Ken Carey, GTIPeter Coon, Quality SeedRyan Streatch, RTF Water Saver

Milton O�ce 1-800-263-4112 King City O�ce 1-866-703-5464Scarborough O�ce 416-289-3635Delhi Head O�ce 1-800-387-7246

www.vandenbussche.com

P.O. Box 62980 William St. W.Harriston, ON, N0G 1Z0

Office: 519-510-TURF (8873)Fax: 519-510-8875Email: [email protected]

Turface MVP • Grass SeedTurf & Tree FertilizersPest Control Products

Plant Products Co. Ltd.Brampton, Ontario

905-793-7000 or 1-800-387-2449Fax 905-793-9632 • plantprod.com



Interview with Tab Buckner

Member and Facility Profi leTAB BUCKNER, MANAGER, PARK OPERATIONS AND CEMETERY SERVICES

TOWNSHIP OF LANGLEY, BC

What is your role with the Township of Langley? Manager of Park Operations and Cemetery Services for the Township of Langley. The Township of Langley is located in the southwest corner of the province of British Columbia. We are 45 kilometers east of the City of Vancouver in the beautiful agriculture-rich Fraser Valley. The Trans-Canada Highway runs through it dissecting the northern part of the municipality from the south. The

municipality has a land mass of 316 square kilometers and a population of approximately 104,000. 70% of the Township land mass still resides within the BC Agricultural Land Reserve and is not available for land development.

What kind of team do you work with? The Township has a dedicated parks crew of 21 full time staff (“FT”) and 12 temporary full time staff (“TFT”). Four of those full time staff are administration, tasked with the following duties: park management, clerical, park bookings, facility allocations, special events, managing contracts, and asset maintenance. The remainder of the staff are outside employees and they work in three separate work groups: 1) Turf management: 8 FT’s and 8 TFT’s, 2) Park facilities and infrastructure (which includes sanitation, trails, playgrounds, sport courts, etc.): 6 FT’s and 4 TFT’s, and 3) Cemetery services: 3 FT’s.

What is the biggest challenge in your job? Dealing with multiple personalities that exist both internally and externally of the organization. You walk a fi ne line trying to keep most people happy most of the time. When allocation of sports fi elds was part of my responsibilities I used to comment to my Director that if all the user groups were unhappy with their allocation hours……then I got it right!

What is the most satisfying part, what makes the job worthwhile for you? I enjoy servicing the community that I reside in. Also, I get great satisfaction when I tour around the Township’s park system and get to see the great park infrastructure that has been constructed and maintained to a high standard.

What is the biggest misconception about your job? That individuals think it is just seasonal work. What I mean is that people assume the winter months are a slow period for parks departments. Which is correct in terms of growing season but staff are busy; maintaining both natural and synthetic turf fi elds, baseball prep, fi nalizing the budget, allocating sports fi elds for the next season, facility maintenance and hiring seasonal staff for the spring.

What is your educational/employment background? I have a BA in History from the University of Victoria, Diplomas in Horticulture (Turfgrass Management) and Business from Kwantlen Polytechnic University. I have been in this industry for 25 years; 18 years with Langley School District Grounds Department and the past seven years with the Township of Langley.

Interview with Tab BucknerWhat is your role with the Township of Langley? Park Operations and Cemetery Services for the Township of Langley. The Township of Langley is located in the southwest corner of the province of British Columbia. We are 45 kilometers east of the City of Vancouver

municipality has a land mass of 316 square kilometers and a population of


What are you and your team responsible for? In the Township of Langley there are over 101 active and passive parks, 3 cemeteries, greenway and trails which adds up to 607 hectares to manage. The largest park is McLeod Athletic at 42 hectares and the smallest is Jubilee Park at 250 square meters.

The Turf Management crew is responsible for 63 natural turf and 6 synthetic turf sports fi elds in total:

Sand Based Sports Fields• (1) Combination Soccer, Rugby and Ball• (26) Combination Soccer and Ball• (1) Stand Alone Rugby• (6) Stand Alone Soccer• (6) Stand Alone Ball

Soil Based Irrigated Sports Fields• (1) Combination Soccer, Ball and Cricket• (5) Combination Soccer and Ball• (2) Stand Alone Soccer• (5) Stand Alone Ball

Soil Based Non-Irrigated Sports Fields• (3) Combination Soccer and Ball• (1) Soccer Stand Alone• (6) Stand Alone Ball

Synthetic Turf Fields• (1) Combination Soccer, Field Lacrosse and Ball• (1) Combination Football and Soccer• (3) Combination Soccer and Field Lacrosse• (1) Stand Alone Soccer

The Park Facilities and Infrastructure crew are responsible for:

• (1) 2200 seat Stadium • (1) 400 m Track• (9) Fieldhouses• (1) Dock with 2 Boathouses• (30) Tennis Courts• (5) Skateparks• (5) Sprayparks• (56) Playgrounds• (6) Sportboxes • (2) Mountain Bike Parks

introducing the turfco triwave 40 overseeder from g.c....

Documents